Uncategorized —

WiFi and autism: a quick debunking

Reports of a link between WiFi signals and childhood autism shouldn't cause …

Late Wednesday, as most people in the US were focusing on the next day's holiday festivities, Engadget picked up on a potentially unnerving press release entitled "Link Between Wireless Technology and Autism Unveiled in New Scientific Report." Given the increasing prevalence of WiFi use, a clear link between this technology and autism should give many of us pause. But a closer examination of the press release should raise enough red flags that the announcement should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

The first issue comes from the journal in which the results are apparently published. The press release calls the source the Australasian Journal of Clinical Environmental Medicine. As noted by a ZDNet columnist, however, that journal doesn't actually exist. The detailed reference refers to the "J.Aust.Coll.Nutr.& Env.Med," which translates to the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutrition & Environmental Medicine. This does exist, but the journal's web page is currently under construction. Information elsewhere on the site claims that it is peer reviewed, but it's not indexed by PubMed, meaning it's not on the radar screens of the vast majority of biomedical researchers.

The college behind the journal dates from the 1980s, but currently lists its mailing address as a PO box. It has affiliations with various other integrative and herbal medicine organizations in Australia. Overall, it appears to be an obscure organization that is operating near the fringes of mainstream medical practices. None of this actually impeaches the research itself (I've requested a copy of the paper, but have not yet received it), but results of this significance would be expected to appear in a higher-profile publication if the research were solid.

Other questions are raised by the two authors of the study itself. One of them, Dr. George Carlo, is based at what appears to be a Washington lobbying group. Carlo seems to believe that individuals sensitive to wireless signals exist, despite evidence to the contrary, and claims that there is a well-substantiated mechanism for explaining their existence. I've tracked the literature in this area, and I'm unaware of any such mechanism.

The second author is Tamara Jo Mariea, who has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and several professional certificates in clinical nutrition. Neither appears to be associated with any academic medical facility, an appearance furthered by the fact that the contacts on the press release have AOL and Verizon e-mail addresses. Thus, there's no indication that either of the authors have the training, experience, or facilities to conduct a clinical research study.

The problems don't end there, however. The release makes clear that the study is based entirely on the hypothesis that autism is the product of heavy metal toxicity. This hypothesis is an outgrowth of the failed efforts to link autism rises to the use of mercury preservatives in vaccines. To the best of my knowledge, it has no experimental support, but it has led to a lucrative business for those who promise "cures" for autism through treatments that supposedly remove heavy metals from patients' blood via chelation. Notably, Mariea runs a clinic that offers these treatments, and would thus benefit from any aura of credibility chelation achieves.

So, we're several steps removed from credible science by the time we get to the actual central premise of the publication: that WiFi signals interfered with a heavy metal detoxification scheme performed in Mariea's clinic. It's impossible to judge this claim without a copy of the paper, and it may be difficult to evaluate even then, depending on the journal's standards for reporting experimental details. But, given the absence of any clear connection between heavy metals and autism, it doesn't actually matter—the paper is founded on unsubstantiated premises.

The key message here has nothing to do with either autism or WiFi radiation. Instead, the message is that sensational-sounding reports like this shouldn't be given any credibility without performing any Internet searchers on any of the principles involved. It's a message some of those who have simply relayed the press release would have done well to have heeded.